CodexAI

par KI

Workspace

Toutes les décisions2.7M+Récentes

Judiciaires

Cour de CassationCour d'AppelTribunal JudiciaireTrib. de Commerce

Administratives

Conseil d'ÉtatCour Admin. d'AppelTrib. Administratif

Codes de loi

Code civilCode du travailCode de commerceCode pénalCode procédure civileCGICode sécu. socialeCode de l'urbanismeCode de l'enviro.Code monétaire fin.

Droit social

Prud'hommes19KConventions coll.26KDoctrine fiscale14K

IA & Outils

IA JuridiqueNEWVeille hebdoNEWMCP ServerAPICitationsStatistiquesAlertes
ConnexionS'inscrire

CodexAI

RechercheJurisprudenceCodesCitationsStatistiquesAlertes
Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"
Exporter CSV
RechercheDécisionsCodesCPHAlertes

986 résultats pour « Handburger »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1987:0709DEC001175585

Admin. suprême

9 juillet 1987

9 juillet 1987

de la République) discontinued proceedings instituted at the applicant's request (Anzeige) stating that no punishable act had been committed on French territory (... das Vorliegen einer strafbaren Handlung

Page 47 sur 50

← PrécédentSuivant →
Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1991:0108REP001370488

Admin. suprême

8 janvier 1991

8 janvier 1991

    S. 113 of the Criminal Code reads:   [German]   "Wer einem anderen in einer für Dritten wahrnehmbaren Weise eine strafbare Handlung vorwirft, für die die Strafe schon vollzogen

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0416JUD005509216

Admin. suprême

16 avril 2019

16 avril 2019

    The CJEU has interpreted the notion of the “transaction value” numerous times (cases of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ericus v. Van Houten (no.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0504JUD000063303

Admin. suprême

4 mai 2006

4 mai 2006

    The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Hamburg, Germany. 5.     On 25 July 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0411JUD005005316

Admin. suprême

11 avril 2019

11 avril 2019

Plog, a lawyer practising in Hamburg. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr H. ‑ J.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:1207JUD003937815

Admin. suprême

7 décembre 2021

7 décembre 2021

    Section 354 of the Enforcement Act reads as follows: “(1)     A claim to an act ( Anspruch auf eine Handlung ) which cannot be performed by a third party and the performance of

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1998:0520REP002779895

Admin. suprême

20 mai 1998

20 mai 1998

  Fraglich ist, ob die Aufzeichnungen weiter aufbewahrt werden durften, nachdem sich offenbar herausgestellt hatte, dass keine strafbare Handlung vorbereitet wurde ...

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0217JUD004415898

Admin. suprême

17 février 2004

17 février 2004

It passed with that Crown to the House of Habsburg in 1526, and was taken over by Prussia in 1742 under the Treaty of Berlin.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1989:0413DEC001238786

Admin. suprême

13 avril 1989

13 avril 1989

Act reads as follows:   (German)   "Auf Antrag des Anklägers ist auf Einziehung in einem selbständigen Verfahren zu erkennen, wenn in einem Medium der objektive Tatbestand einer strafbaren Handlung

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0503DEC003903297

Admin. suprême

3 mai 2001

3 mai 2001

early 1990s the Government decided on a policy of maintaining and further improving the competitiveness of the port of Rotterdam as Europe’s main entry and exit port, as compared to its major rivals, Hamburg

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1999:0301REP002573594

Admin. suprême

1 mars 1999

1 mars 1999

  When lodging his application, he was living in Erkrath; he later moved to Hamburg. He was represented by Mr P. Koeppel, a lawyer practising in Munich.   3.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0211DEC000631509

Admin. suprême

11 février 2014

11 février 2014

Donat, a lawyer practising in Hamburg. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1109JUD004727415

Admin. suprême

9 novembre 2017

9 novembre 2017

The second applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Harburg. A.     Police operation 6.     On 9 December 2007 both applicants went to a football match in Munich. 7.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0506JUD003934398

Admin. suprême

6 mai 2003

6 mai 2003

the early 1990s the government decided on a policy of maintaining and further improving the competitiveness of Rotterdam harbour as Europe’s main entry and exit port, as compared to its major rivals, Hamburg

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0602JUD002364609

Admin. suprême

2 juin 2016

2 juin 2016

Böttcher, a lawyer practising in Hamburg. On 30 March 2010 insolvency proceedings were opened over the applicant company’s assets.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0624JUD006908013

Admin. suprême

24 juin 2025

24 juin 2025

border crossing point, he stated that they were carrying EUR   1,000; however, a personal search revealed 73,100 Swiss Francs (CHF) and EUR 5,500 in several envelopes in the appellant’s wife’s handbag

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0329JUD000751218

Admin. suprême

29 mars 2022

29 mars 2022

officer, acting in complicity with two other individuals, his spouse I.S. and a certain J.R, was believed to have asked a suspect in another criminal case, V.M., to illegally obtain certain goods – two handbags

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1993:0514REP001525289

Admin. suprême

14 mai 1993

14 mai 1993

  Section 13 para. 2 is also applicable if the damage was caused before 4 December 1980, as long as the damaging conduct (schädigende Handlung) continued after the entry into force of the Act.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0216JUD002779895

Admin. suprême

16 février 2000

16 février 2000

become apparent that no criminal offence was being prepared (“ Fraglich ist, ob die Aufzeichnungen weiter aufbewahrt werden durften, nachdem sich offenbar herausgestellt hatte, dass keine strafbare Handlung

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1119JUD004699808

Admin. suprême

19 novembre 2015

19 novembre 2015

Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 38, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIV; and, by contrast, Escoubet [GC], § 37, and Müller-Hartburg , §§   47-48, both cited above).

Source officielle